Chris516

This just came through my e-mail 20minutes ago.

Vote Results on Petri/Johnson/Lipinski Amendment


On the morning of Thursday, February 2, by a vote of 27 to 29, the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee voted down the bipartisan Petri/Johnson/Lipinski amendment to fix many of the deficiencies in H.R. 7, the House transportation bill, particularly as they relate to the Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School programs. The amendment would have also restored eligibility of rail-trails.

Thank you to everyone who spoke up. More than 8,000 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) supporters—along with thousands others from around the country—contacted their representatves in support of this amendment. Regardless of the outcome of vote, these many thousands of voices in support of trails, walking and bicycling will be an important part of the debate to follow.

For background on this amendment, RTC's efforts to defend TE and more, see our TE Action Center.

Below, please see a roll call of votes on this amendment.

YEA (in support of trails, walking and bicycling)
Altmire (D-PA)
Bernice-Johnson (D-TX)
Bishop (D-NY)
Boswell (D-IA)
Brown (D-FL)
Capuano (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Cohen (D-TN)
Costello (D-IL)
Cummings (D-MD)
DeFazio (D-OR)
Edwards (D-MD)
Hirono (D-HI) Holden (D-PA)
Johnson (R-IL) Larsen (D-WA)
Lipinski (D-IL)
LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Michaud (D-ME)
Nadler (D-NY)
Napolitano (D-CA)
Norton (D-DC)
Petri (R-WI)
Rahall (D-WV)
Richardson (D-CA) Shuler (D-NC)
Walz (D-MN)




NAY (against trails, walking and bicycling)
Barletta (R-PA)
Buschon (R-IN)
Capito (R-WV) Coble (R-NC)
Cravaack (R-MN) Crawford (R-AR)
Denham (R-CA)
Duncan (R-TN)
Farenthold (R-TX)
Fleischmann (R-TN)
Gibbs (R-OH) Graves (R-MO)
Guinta (R-NH) Hanna (R-NY)
Harris (R-MD) Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
Hultgren (R-IL) Hunter (R-CA)
Landry (R-LA) Lankford (R-OK)
Long (R-MO) Meehan (R-PA)
Mica (R-FL) Miller (R-CA)
Miller (R-MI) Ribble (R-WI)
Schmidt (R-OH) Shuster (R-PA)
Southerland (R-FL)

DavidW56

Thanks for the update. Thanks also for the alert on this forum regarding the amendment yesterday, I would not have known otherwise. Apparently my e-mail to Rep. Miller was insufficient to sway her to support the amendment. FWIW, I've never written my congressman/woman on an issue before, so your appeal was constructive.

Chris516

My Representative(Rep. Chris Van Hollen), didn't even vote on the amendment.

(talk about ignorance in government)

Doane

Thanks, Chris, just noticed you posted the results too.

Chris516

My pleasure.

Captain Blight

Damn near straight down party lines. And people wonder why I'm disillusioned.

mnemia

It's sad that bicycling has become a partisan political issue (since there is nothing inherently "liberal" or "conservative" about cycling), but it's become increasingly apparent that it has, for the most part.

John Forester

I disagree. Bicycle advocacy is a big-government issue because it focuses on getting government to build facilities, and because its other desired action is to get government to change the way that people live. Both of those are partisan issues in our present political scene.

Chris516

Not only the building of bike/ped facilities. But getting people(and law enforcement) to realize that, bikes are allowed on the road.

DirtRoadRunner

The government has spent trillions building facilities for cars, drastically molding and changing the landscape/culture of our country into what it is today. Yet, if separate cyclist infrastructure is proposed, there will always be a crowd that cries "socialism!", despite the fact that all public transportation infrastructure is a "socialist" endeavor. Many of my cycling friends are very conservative, yet all support bicycle infrastructure. Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), who voted against the amendment, had a statement on his website championing voting "Yes" on the other transportation bill, which brought federal money to his district to help fix rural bridges. My local Rep., Russ Carnahan (D-MO), voted yes on the bill. The other "No" Missouri vote comes from Billy Long (R), who I'm doubtful is a cyclist (https://long.house.gov/).

It is a sad day when promoting a form of transportation that reduces traffic, air pollution, our dependence on foreign oil, and provides exercise is such a partisan affair.

mconlonx

Is your Rep on the Transportation Committee...?

We lobbied Guinta (R-NH) as a business located in NH and as individuals, but no dice.

mnemia

That's a copout. As others have pointed out, many of our leaders are quite selective and situational about what they consider "big government". Apparently roads and highways are not "big government", but minimal funding for bike and pedestrian planning is, despite being a) more cost effective from a bang for the buck perspective, and b) orders of magnitude less money. If ANYTHING is big government, road and highway funding certainly qualifies. So, given that many small government conservatives apparently have no problem with the federal government spending billions on road projects (and many don't), I have to conclude that partisan opposition to bike funding is the result of something other than principled objections to spending federal dollars on transportation. Perhaps they perceive bikes as a "liberal" cause, or an urban one (in the case of rural legislators), or something that is otherwise unimportant to spend money on, or something that isn't going to raise them campaign contributions or recognition (unlike large road projects, which often have large lobbying groups behind them). There could be any number of things that explain the partisan opposition, but it's not because they are being principled about "big government".

John Forester

The political division is not a matter of "socialism!", not at least if socialism is considered in its normal sense of the government owning the productive facilities. I called this a big-government issue, which is not part of socialism. The last line of the above posting says it all, and its author should have recognized this.

The highway system, no matter how much has been spent on it, is merely the continuation of governments' historic practice of facilitating the transportation that people want to do. Oh, also, the transportation of government's armies. The highway system is there for cyclists to use for the travel and transportation that they want to make. I know that the American system tries to make cycling on highways illegitimate by special traffic laws that restrict cyclists to the edge of the road or bikeways; those restrictions are what bicycle advocates should be fighting, but never do. I repeat, all of that is to facilitate the travel and transportation that people want to make.

However, bicycle advocacy is very different. It is trying to get government to spend its money to get people to do what they don't want to do because the results, if achieved, would satisfy the advocates' desires for "reduc[ing] traffic, air pollution, our dependence on foreign oil, and provid[ing] exercise." That's why it is a big government issue. Whether on not one agrees with this program, or opposes it, one should recognize it for what it is, rather than hiding behind ideology.

Bekologist

people don't want safe routes to school for their kids? say what?

mnemia

I feel you seriously underestimate the degree to which government policy DRIVES what people "want to do", rather than the other way around. People drive everywhere because it's often convenient, and it's convenient because government has spent trillions on making it convenient. And I simply do not believe that people don't "want" to have money spent on bike and pedestrian infrastructure at all (which is the position of the legislators who oppose these programs). People may not want as much money spent on it as is spent on roads, and there's no way that we SHOULD spend that much on bike/ped infrastructure. But I don't believe that people want the spending to be ZERO. So, since I believe government spending drives how people get around in many indirect ways, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people will only "want" to get around by car if car-related infrastructure and planning is all that you're willing to spend money on.

Your standard for what constitutes "big government" here basically boils down to anything that isn't the status quo. I don't believe there is any actual difference between general road funding and bike funding as far as "big government" issues: both are the government spending money on transportation, and both affect peoples lives and behavior very strongly. There is no difference.

Chris516

Unfortunately, I didn't catch that detail. So, Rep. Van Hollen ended up being no help at all.

John Forester

It is argued that I underestimate the degree to which "government policy DRIVES what people want to do." The cause and effect is stated as: Motoring "is convenient because government has spent trillions on making it convenient." The convenience of motoring is the driver, not the convenience of roads. If motoring were not convenient, no matter how much had been spent on roads, those roads would be largely empty. Modern government builds roads because the people demand facilities that enable them to use the convenience of motor transport.

Mnemia argues "that people will .. 'want' to get around [only] by car if car-related infrastructure and planning is all that ... " government will spend money on. The road system (if that is what you mean by infrastructure) is open to all lawful users, cyclists among them. I think that we can all agree that American road design skimps on users other than motorists. That was allowed to occur because there were so few cyclists; the cause of that is partly the American governments' anti-cyclist policy, but that policy became politically acceptable because motoring is so much more convenient than cycling. However, the fact that American road design skimps on cycling, in the parallel-bar grates, non-functioning and mistimed traffic signals, rough surfaces (a maintenance problem), narrow lanes, does not prevent cycling. Those people who really want to use bicycle transport are doing so. The detail planning error is the residential estate with only one or two connections directly to arterial roads, created in the desire to exclude all traffic not starting or stopping in the estate. But urban-scale planning is another matter. Attempts to force the redesign of urban areas to suit the scale of bicycle transport have, so far, never been successful, and are not likely to be.

It is not correct that my description of why some people consider bicycle advocacy as being a big government issue is based on the idea of maintaining the status quo. No, it is based on the fact that bicycle advocacy urges government to spend money to get people to do what they don't want to do to achieve the purposes of the advocates, rather than the purposes of the target group. Another name for that is social engineering. For some people, these are very nasty policies of big government.

Bekologist

Its like looking back in time to when doctors smoked in the examination room, or maybe Friday nights at the Abramoff's!

Back on topic,

Axing affordable programs that support active transportation is a reprehensible move by lobbyist-addled congressmen intent on driving america into greater congestion, obesity and diabetic shock for the little ones.

genec

Yes, the few the proud and the brave! Emphasis on FEW.

The fact is that more people WANT to bike, but feel intimidated by the very motor-vehicle centric design of our roadways. How many people have bicycles in their garages that would like to use them on a regular basis, but instead relegate the use of bikes to Sunday park rides?

John, I am a very experienced cyclist who is fed up with having to deal with rude and dangerous motorists... I won't bike commute on the high speed roads that feed the office complex where I work... I WANT to, but instead, I look for off road alternatives, because of my vast experience (10s of thousands of miles) on a bicycle and dealing with motorists on motor-vehicle centric roads.

My office has several people who have biked to work and then comment on the hassles of dealing with motor traffic on motor-vehicle centric roads... again professionals that want to bike, but don't want to face automobile traffic.

Bekologist

congress is not only gutting active transportation, they are also gutting transit funding and pooling it back into the highway fund.

what a bunch of tools for special interests in their votes effectively limiting transportation choice, to favor the most wasteful, polluting, congestion causing mode of transportation.

haven't the jokers heard the adage "can't build cities out of congestion by adding road capacity"

the backlog on bridge repairs alone will eat up all the money previously allocated to alternative transportation, and the roads will still be crowded and potholed.

how incredibly shortsighted on the part of the US house of representatives.

Bekologist

john obviously missed how New York City has helped triple ridership in the last decade by planning roads more effectively for bicycle transportation.

Bekologist

for those actually interested in the congressional fiasco,

Congressman Peter DeFazio chides his fellow committee members in a stunning rebuke of the gas-addled, special interest fed infrastructure bill being advanced in congress....



peter defazio on the transportation bill markup...


and in defense of the safe routes to school funding, this is quite bike related.....

squirtdad

I am of of the opinion (stated before) that the only thing that is sure to increase ridership significantly beyond the core (i.e. us) is making riding more economic or less of a hassle that driving.

In the current economic/political climate there is only one thing in the near future that can do that is significant increase in gasoline costs. I have no idea what the tipping point is $5, $5.50, $6. This is the one big factor that is at lease somewhat market driven.

Everything else, education, traffice enforcement, more bike parking, no free parking at places of work, more infrastructure, etc. will require govermental funding and intrvention, none of which is in the cards in general. Towns and cities that are doing forward looking things are in the minority.

it is a chicken or egg thing, we don't have enough riders to be a huge political forces but we need political force to make more changes

Bekologist

hmmmm, sounds like a plug for building in roads on which riding is less of a hassle.........did you also miss how New York City's ridership has tripled in the last decade, in concert with the implementation of better roadways for bicycling, squirtdad?

And what about the kids getting benefits from safe routes to schools? do they not deserve a pittance?

San Jose received over $300,000 is safe routes to school funding in 2009, that more than likely benefited both squirtdad AND the kids riding around San Jose.

John Forester

No, I have not missed this at all. NYC is a place where bicycle transport is very useful. That's why people do it there. I know Manhattan residents who bicycled there decades ago, precisely because that was a useful way to get around town. Bicycle transport is so useful in some parts of NYC because the place is so seriously overloaded with motor transport that motoring is an ineffective way to get around town.